Posted By JEB This sounds like a typical situation where the PS is appointed far to late. There are as far as I can determine from your thread a few assumptions on your part e.g. (The landlord (who as far as i know is making there own h & S arrangements) is replacing smoke vents in the ceiling} you need to clarify what is going on here as there will be be some type of height work and my experience of some the companies who carry out smoke vent work leads a lot to be desired. As far as I'm aware there is no legal reason why the warehouse staff can not be in the same location as the CDM work. However the PC must take account of this and provide safe access and egress to their work place and obviously their workplace needs to be free from any of the construction hazards, segregation of the two operations would be the ideal solution, I have insisted on heras fencing in similar situations. Both sets of employees should be briefed as to their responsibilities and restrictions. Your first move should be to arrange a meting with all the parties involved to clarify everyones roles and responsibilities.

Posted By Ron Hunter You state you were appointed after the start of construction work. This suggests: (a) there was no input from you or opportunity to discuss or in any way influence the design; (b)you did not prepare a pre-tender H&S Plan; (c) you did not advise the client that the initial construction phase plan was suitably developed to allow the construction work to commence; (d) the Project was Notified way after the time legally required; (e) there is a real risk of contractor working on site without the authority of the Principal Contractor; and, (f)this confusion over contractors will add difficulty & complexity to the effective gathering together of info for the H&S File.(and I bet the Client hasn't stipulated his requirements for the File!) As Planning Supervisor you are legally required to comply with CDM Regulations 7, 14 & 15. From your posting you, personally, are already in breach of all three.You now face an obvious but difficult dilemma. My hearfelt advice to you is to walk away - now.

Posted By Martyn Hendrie ddraigice, I disagree that this should automatically be registered as one project. What has been described seem to me to be two clients who have commissioned two projects on the same site. (This is a specific example in the CDM ACoP where there can be two projects on one site {clause 177}) Of course in such a case there would have to be adequate communication; co-operation and co-ordination between the two Principal contractors.

Posted By Robert K Lewis The root of this question seems to be around who provided permission for the landlord to undertake the work to the building. If it is your client then he cannot complain at the timescales involved arising from the need to ensure that the works are run consecutively rather than concurrently. If the two construction clients had got their act together they could have made it a single project under a single PC who could then have applied a decent bit of planning to the activities thus enabling works to be moved along and phased together. With the intimate mix of tasks from two clients there is no real method by which you can call this two separated projects on one site. The acop envisages there to be no interrelationship between the two projects for this to be a satisfactory solution. It is possible to perform this mixing act but normally only when a work area and safe access can be isolated from the main construction area. The PC would still take control overall however and this seems to be an issue. I personally would only use this for works such as artists creating murals and other decorative effects, furniture installers and similar. I certainly would not be permitting final use people to enter until at least practical completion and handover have been agreed. Two or three solutions - Try some diplomatic head banging Tell client he is up the creek until the landlord has finished The third is the one already given - walk away and let them sort it. I hope you have not tied yourself into this without a no-cost exit route. Bob